Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to the original filing of 11/09/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is drawn to a computer program per se. A computer program is not a series of steps or acts and this is not a process. A computer program is not a physical article or object and as such is not a machine or manufacture. A computer program is not a combination of substances and therefore not a compilation of matter. Thus, a computer program by itself does not fall within any of the four categories of invention. Therefore, Claims 15-19 are not statutory.
5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In summary, claim 20 recites a “computer readable storage medium” stores a computer program. In the specification of the present application, the “computer readable storage medium” is not expressly defined as a tangible medium. Thus, the broadest, reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” encompasses non-statutory subject matter (transmission media or wave) that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Accordingly, Claim 20 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a method, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “generating, based on a knowledge representation model, a semantic graph corresponding to conceptual-layer service logic, wherein the semantic graph comprises one or more types of nodes and edges for connecting the one or more types of nodes, and the nodes comprise at least a node of a variable type; generating, based on the semantic graph and a physical table to which a service object is mapped, an instance graph, wherein the instance graph comprises the nodes and edges of the semantic graph; and determining, based on the executable code and a data instance corresponding to a node having an in-degree of 0 in the instance graph, a data instance corresponding to each node in the instance graph, wherein the data instance corresponding to the node is deduced based on a data instance of a previous fork node on which the node depends” These limitations recite the collection, organization, analysis, transformation, and application of information. For example, the claimed “knowledge representation model,” “conceptual-layer service logic,” “semantic graph,” “instance graph,” “service logic relationship,” and “data instance” are all information constructs. The recited nodes and edges represent relationships among information. Determining output data based on dependency relationships constitute analysis and manipulation of information according to specified rules.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“generating executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“generating executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 15:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a product, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “generate, based on a knowledge representation model, a semantic graph corresponding to conceptual-layer service logic, wherein the semantic graph comprises one or more types of nodes and edges for connecting the one or more types of nodes, and the nodes comprise at least a node of a variable type; generate, based on the semantic graph and a physical table to which a service object is mapped, an instance graph, wherein the instance graph comprises the nodes and edges of the semantic graph; and determine, based on the executable code and a data instance corresponding to a node having an in-degree of 0 in the instance graph, a data instance corresponding to each node in the instance graph, wherein the data instance corresponding to the node is deduced based on a data instance of a previous fork node on which the node depends” These limitations recite the collection, organization, analysis, transformation, and application of information. For example, the claimed “knowledge representation model,” “conceptual-layer service logic,” “semantic graph,” “instance graph,” “service logic relationship,” and “data instance” are all information constructs. The recited nodes and edges represent relationships among information. Determinine output data based on dependency relationships constitute analysis and manipulation of information according to specified rules.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“generate executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“a computer” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“generate executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“a computer” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 20:
Step 1: The claim is directed to a medium, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites following abstract ideas:
The limitations “generate, based on a knowledge representation model, a semantic graph corresponding to conceptual-layer service logic, wherein the semantic graph comprises one or more types of nodes and edges for connecting the one or more types of nodes, and the nodes comprise at least a node of a variable type; generate, based on the semantic graph and a physical table to which a service object is mapped, an instance graph, wherein the instance graph comprises the nodes and edges of the semantic graph; and determine, based on the executable code and a data instance corresponding to a node having an in-degree of 0 in the instance graph, a data instance corresponding to each node in the instance graph, wherein the data instance corresponding to the node is deduced based on a data instance of a previous fork node on which the node depends” These limitations recite the collection, organization, analysis, transformation, and application of information. For example, the claimed “knowledge representation model,” “conceptual-layer service logic,” “semantic graph,” “instance graph,” “service logic relationship,” and “data instance” are all information constructs. The recited nodes and edges represent relationships among information. Determinine output data based on dependency relationships constitute analysis and manipulation of information according to specified rules.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements:
“generate executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“a memory and processor” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
“generate executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
“a memory and processor” merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, MPEP 2106.05(f)). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of state transition probability calculation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the generating, based on a knowledge representation model, a semantic graph corresponding to conceptual-layer service logic comprises: obtaining, from the knowledge representation model, nodes and edges corresponding to the conceptual-layer service logic; and generating, based on the nodes and edges corresponding to the conceptual-layer service logic, the semantic graph” amount to representation and organization of information.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the conceptual-layer service logic comprises: logic of an operation rule type, logic of a condition-based determination type, and/or logic of a complex function/model type” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the nodes further comprise a node of a constant type, a node of a function type, and/or a node of a container type; and the node of the container type is encapsulated with a semantic graph that comprises different types of nodes and different types of edges and that is invoked by an upper-layer semantic graph to construct a multi-level semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 5 recites “wherein the edges comprise: an edge of a process control relationship type, an edge of a computing relationship type, an edge of a logical determination relationship type, and/or an edge of a logical link relationship type” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the generating executable code based on a service logic relationship between the nodes in the instance graph comprises: performing local width-first traversal using the node having the in-degree of 0 in the instance graph as a start node, and generating, based on a dependency relationship between the nodes in the instance graph, a plurality of paths that can run independently and in parallel” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).; “determining, in a traversal process, a subpath that matches a predefined meta-path feature, and generating, based on semantic meanings that correspond to types of nodes in the subpath and semantic meanings that correspond to edges in the path, executable code; and based on a node of a container type being found in the traversal process, opening lower-layer submap logic encapsulated in the container node; traversing a submap based on the same logic, to finish generating the executable code in the submap; and then returning to an upper-layer instance graph, to continue to perform a subsequent operation” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 7 recites “wherein the method further comprises: removing, based on the predefined meta-path feature, a path on which a node that has no data instance in the instance graph is located” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 8 recites” wherein the method further comprises: determining a running state and a running progress of the executable code in a computing environment” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 9 recites ”wherein the method further comprises: performing conflict detection on the semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 10 recites” wherein the performing conflict detection on the semantic graph comprises: determining that an initially-detected node is not in a node set of a current connection graph, and then performing depth-first traversal starting from the initially-detected node; and each time a node is traversed, based on the node not having an access mark, marking the node with an access mark, adding the node to the node set of the current connection graph, and continuing with the traversal downward; otherwise, determining that a directed loop is found, and outputting path information formed by all nodes that have an access mark; and based on an out-degree of the node being greater than 1 and/or an in-degree of the node being greater than 1, storing a previous fork node and/or a next fork node that are/is not traversed by the node into a queue; or based on an out-degree of the node being 0, clearing access marks of all nodes in the current connection graph, taking a new node out of a queue of a previous fork node and/or a next fork node, and repeating the preceding steps; otherwise, selecting a node not in the current connection graph, and repeating the preceding steps” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 11 recites “wherein the method further comprises: performing logic representation ambiguity detection on the semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 12 recites “wherein the performing logic representation ambiguity detection on the semantic graph comprises: in the semantic graph, based on an assumed condition, represented by if-then, of the conceptual-layer service logic being met, if at least two processing manners appear, determining that logic representation ambiguity exists in the semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 13 recites “wherein the method further comprises: performing associated-impact analysis on the dependency relationship between the nodes in the instance graph, and performing what-if analysis based on an adjusted data instance, wherein the what-if analysis is used to represent impact of the adjusted data instance on a subsequent dependent node” amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with a generic class of computer algorithm. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 14 recites “wherein the method further comprises: based on a data instance corresponding to a node in the instance graph not meeting service expectation, regenerating, based on the knowledge representation model, a semantic graph corresponding to modified conceptual-layer service logic” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 16 recites “wherein when the computer program product runs on a computer, the computer is further configured to: obtain, from the knowledge representation model, nodes and edges corresponding to the conceptual-layer service logic; and generate, based on the nodes and edges corresponding to the conceptual-layer service logic, the semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 17 recites “wherein the conceptual-layer service logic comprises: logic of an operation rule type, logic of a condition-based determination type, and/or logic of a complex function/model type” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 18 recites “wherein the nodes further comprise a node of a constant type, a node of a function type, and/or a node of a container type; and the node of the container type is encapsulated with a semantic graph that comprises different types of nodes and different types of edges and that is invoked by an upper-layer semantic graph to construct a multi-level semantic graph” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claim 19 recites “wherein the edges comprise: an edge of a process control relationship type, an edge of a computing relationship type, an edge of a logical determination relationship type, and/or an edge of a logical link relationship type” insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and output. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Phenuel S. Salomon whose telephone number is (571) 270-1699. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (Alternate Friday Off) EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-3800.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHENUEL S SALOMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2146
Prosecution Insights